Comments:Pakistan frames law against 'honour killing'
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Why not? | 1 | 18:20, 1 January 2017 |
| To add the catogery of Islam or not | 17 | 16:48, 1 January 2017 |
If an article which focuses on Shari'a law has CAT:Islam, I would love to see articles mentioning Jesus and/or Mary to be categorised under CAT:Christianity, CAT:Islam and CAT:Judaism.
This does not belong on the opinions page. It's a categorization issue. The other thread seems to have soured because of this same decision to bring a categorization issue into "trollspace". I don't think it'll work well no matter who brings it here (i.e., no matter who "starts" it).
It's unfortunate that LQT, although less miserably incompatible with wiki markup than Flow, nevertheless is enough different from ordinary wiki markup that there's no good way to "hide" that whole branch of the other thread.
It is interesting to note that honour killing is not limited to Islamic countries. India democratic and secular, honour killing is still practiced in Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Well with the democratic part, Pakistan is democratic too actually (in a way) but you're right. It's not exclusive to Islamic nations.
"We will impose the law that our holy Quran and Sunnah say".
What's your deal with this POV-pushing? The article talks very clearly about Islamic concepts. Did you even read it?
The article talks about the Shari'a law of Islam rather than Islamic concepts. Islamic concepts is a larger domain. This article points to Shari'a law. Also, merely mentioning "We will impose the law that our holy Quran and Sunnah say" does not invoke Islamic concepts since the modification in the law is not supported by the Shari'a law, nor the holy Quran. This is what the conservative senator said, but not what happened to the law.
"The article talks about the Shari'a law of Islam"
Clearly nothing to do with Islam, then.
When news articles of India are not categorised under South East Asia, Christmas day is not tagged with Christianity and Boxing Day with Commonwealth nations, why is Shari'a law, which is to Islam tagged with Islam?
Disingenuous in the extreme;
- Category:South East Asia does not exist; articles on India are in Category:Asia
- Category:Christmas was created two years after all but one article in it, so naturally it was added retrospectively; it is also a bizarre edge case celebrated almost by geography rather than denomination, despite it's origins (Santa is only red because Coca-Cola wanted him to be, and has nothing to do with Jesus).
- Category:Boxing Day does not exist. Category:Commonwealth nations does not exist. Any category for the Commonwealth would discuss the union itself; it is artificial, and not a geographic delineation.
Since we're asking passive-aggressive questions, why is this thread posted as an opinion?